Jump to content

29 Things You Only Understand if you're a Geocacher


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I saw this on facebook. If you were not already a cacher or if you were a new free app user, wouldn't you look at any nest and think...maybe it's in there and disturb a real nest. Or sit on a bench, 'this wood is not as solid as it once might have been, lets pull it off and look. Not there, oops, we just broke the bench'

 

And the logging. "You feel like you speak a whole other language, in which “FTF” means joy, and “DNF” means anguish." What that really means is 'I'm too lazy to write anything for something that had hours of thought put into it for the cacher's pleasure.

 

It was a fun list. From #10 on, I was good with. If only cachers saw this list it's fine. But posting it on facebook, well, maybe it's just me.

Anything else I write would have to go to a different thread.

Link to comment

So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! :blink:

 

My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." B)

 

Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face.

Link to comment

Interesting. What's accepted in the TOS regarding images posted to cache listings? If it's posted there and public , could anyone use it? Or just Groundspeak?

 

ETA: yep saw this article earlier and thought it was pretty cool :)

I do share the concerns posted by scrabblers, to a small degree, but that's another topic for other existing threads that's not specifically related to this article =)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! :blink:

 

My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." B)

 

Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face.

 

On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down.

Link to comment

So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! :blink:

 

My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." B)

 

Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face.

 

Ya know, maybe we're all grumpy around here, but that is the first thing I thought of. I did some stalking ERRR, I mean research, and the author of that article is in fact the managing editor for Buzzfeed.com, and used to work for Politico. He wouldn't post all those pics without permission, would he? Seriously, I don't think he would, but I'll have to be proven wrong, I suppose.

Link to comment

So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! :blink:

 

My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." B)

 

Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face.

 

Ya know, maybe we're all grumpy around here, but that is the first thing I thought of. I did some stalking ERRR, I mean research, and the author of that article is in fact the managing editor for Buzzfeed.com, and used to work for Politico. He wouldn't post all those pics without permission, would he? Seriously, I don't think he would, but I'll have to be proven wrong, I suppose.

 

I thought #8 was funny (the photo of a woman searching the butt of a statue) but the next one doesn't send a very good message.

 

"9. Because there's a lot of subtle (and not-so-subtle) rule-breaking involved"

 

It implies that geocachers know that laws are being broken but do not care. Even if that's true, it's not a very good message to be sending about geocachers.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? :lostsignal:

 

And that may be why the caption reads 'So in cities, only the mailboxes are safe", implying that one can't hide cache on a mailbox. I noticed that in one case the usernames were blacked out but there were numerous other photos where the usernames on logs (and when the were posted) was easily readable.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

Ya i did like the one in the statues butt.

 

 

On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down.

 

My concern was not the people, but the photographer. Since Buzzfeed is media, there are different rules regarding permission of the subjects, as opposed to say an advertisement. But someone still owns the picture.

Link to comment

Ya i did like the one in the statues butt.

 

On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down.

 

My concern was not the people, but the photographer. Since Buzzfeed is media, there are different rules regarding permission of the subjects, as opposed to say an advertisement. But someone still owns the picture.

 

Ah, ok. Now that you mention it, there were a few photos that seemed familiar. The list also seemed to correlate with a lot of the topics found in this forum section.

Link to comment

Ya i did like the one in the statues butt.

 

On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down.

 

My concern was not the people, but the photographer.

 

IBTM to the photography forum.

Link to comment

So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! :blink:

 

My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." B)

 

Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face.

 

Haha breathe easy- it was a picture indeed that I took (well my brother took on my phone, same thing) and I posted to the geocaching section on Reddit (as you can see on the bottom of the image). When you post something there it becomes public domain.

 

Funny thing is when I posted there several other folks commented their photos were included too that they'd posted at some point on Reddit. I'm not surprised the editor at Buzzfeed would go there to get good pictures so he wouldn't have to worry about permissions.

Link to comment

And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? :lostsignal:

I know in Canada, Canada Post does not allow caches on their mailboxes.

Until I saw what NYpaddlecacher said above, I read #20 to say that mailboxes were the only safe place to hide a cache... But I wonder if it should be read as he said, meaning that they are the only thing in cities that are safe from cache placements.

 

Regardless, I chuckled and shrugged. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer.

I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located.

 

No, but the reviewers who find them know where they are located.

Link to comment
Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer.

I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located.

 

No, but the reviewers who find them know where they are located.

If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley.

Link to comment
Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer.

I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located.

 

No, but the reviewers who find them know where they are located.

If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley.

 

It's not the reviewer's job to patrol geocaches on the ground. They're volunteers.

Link to comment

If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley.

 

It's not the reviewer's job to patrol geocaches on the ground. They're volunteers.

 

No, but as A-Team said, "If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations" - that implies they review process, and that they're knowingly not applying the guidelines. It has nothing to do with patrolling geocaching on the ground. They do have a responsibility, even though they are volunteers.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley.

 

It's not the reviewer's job to patrol geocaches on the ground. They're volunteers.

 

No, but as A-Team said, "If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations" - that implies they review process, and that they're knowingly not applying the guidelines. It has nothing to do with patrolling geocaching on the ground. They do have a responsibility, even though they are volunteers.

 

I'm not a reviewer, so I don't know to what extent they are expected to act as reviewers when they find geocaches published by other reviewers.

Link to comment

And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? :lostsignal:

I know in Canada, Canada Post does not allow caches on their mailboxes.

 

I am not sure about that. A local cacher checked with Canada Post a few years ago and it seemed that they had no problem with it.

Link to comment

I'm not a reviewer, so I don't know to what extent they are expected to act as reviewers when they find geocaches published by other reviewers.

I have to assume they're duty-bound to act as reviewers while out finding caches. If a regular cacher logs a Needs Archive on a cache, any reviewer can take a look at that and archive if it's warranted. Why can't the same process be triggered by a reviewer acting as a cacher and seeing the same problem?

 

There's also the matter of optics. What would land managers think of this game if the volunteer reviewers, who are the ones charged with policing the game, knowingly turn a blind eye to guideline violations simply because they weren't wearing their reviewer hat at the time? It would be analogous to an off-duty cop seeing a theft in progress and just walking by saying "Sorry, I can't do anything because I'm off-duty".

Link to comment

I'm not a reviewer, so I don't know to what extent they are expected to act as reviewers when they find geocaches published by other reviewers.

I have to assume they're duty-bound to act as reviewers while out finding caches. If a regular cacher logs a Needs Archive on a cache, any reviewer can take a look at that and archive if it's warranted. Why can't the same process be triggered by a reviewer acting as a cacher and seeing the same problem?

 

There's also the matter of optics. What would land managers think of this game if the volunteer reviewers, who are the ones charged with policing the game, knowingly turn a blind eye to guideline violations simply because they weren't wearing their reviewer hat at the time? It would be analogous to an off-duty cop seeing a theft in progress and just walking by saying "Sorry, I can't do anything because I'm off-duty".

 

I live in an area where there are two reviewer jurisdictions very close to each other. As far as I am aware, reviewers are assigned to a particular jurisdiction. So maybe they don't want to step on any toes. I really don't know, and I'm not about to grill these people about why they didn't shut down a cache on a mailbox outside their jurisdiction.

 

I suspect that if a reviewer was to act on every guideline violation they stumbled across in the field as civilian geocachers, they'd go crazy and quit in about a week.

Link to comment

Reviewing process is different than when casual-caching.

Much like they prefer cachers resolve disputes themselves than run to reviewers like parents, if they aren't in a "reviewer role", then it's ultimately up to them how "police-like" they choose to be. That's how I see it anyway, based on the reviewers I know and how I interpret their actions.

A Reviewer who knowingly ignores or break guidelines should be reported.

A cacher who is also a reviewer generally doesn't want to wear that hat while caching, and quite often wants to keep those identities distinctly separate; anonymous, even, to the public. For this very reason.

 

Point still stands: A Reviewer who knowingly ignores or break guidelines should be reported.

Link to comment

So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! :blink:

 

My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." B)

 

Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face.

 

On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down.

 

A few years ago I was surprised to see my face staring back at me in an ad for Blackberry phones. The photo was taken during a photo shoot for a geocaching article in Business Week but wasn't used in the article. I guessed several yeas later the same photographer was hired by Blackberry to supply photos for their ad and she used another photo from that shoot. I was more amused than anything and I probably signed some sort of release at the time the photos were taken.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...